Old Supreme Court case about Butter vs Margarine

C

chexmix

New member
It's gun related, I promise.

I was listening to a podcast about odd history and they were talking about the "Margarine wars." They briefly talked about some of the Supreme Court cases that came out of states banning margarine. One of them was called Shallenburger(maybe spelled wrong) V. Pennsylvania that happened in the late 1890's. I can't find the case online but the basic point was that a state can not ban a regular item(margarine) that the federal government taxes.

Anyone know how/where to find it? Could this apply to "assault" weapons? Is this ruling overturned?
 
The podcast brought up the Powell case and actually made fun of the argument that the 14th applied to the margarine. I was bringing up a different case.
 
mag1911 said:
Another SCOTUS case that pretty much set up the federal government regulatory mess we live with today...
Click to expand...

This thread has nothing to do with Wickard v. Filburn.

And if we can't identify the case the OP is asking about soon. I'm going to just close the thread.
 
And if we can't identify the case the OP is asking about soon. I'm going to just close the thread.
Click to expand...

It was identified in post #2,

Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678 (1888)

Ruling:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was not designed to interfere with the exercise of the police power by the state for the protection of health, the prevention of fraud, and the preservation of the public morals.

The prohibition of the manufacture out of oleaginous substances, or out of any compound thereof other than that produced from unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk, of an article designed to take the place of butter or cheese produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk, or the prohibition upon the manufacture of any imitation or adulterated butter or cheese, or upon the selling or offering for sale, or having in possession with intent to sell, the same, as an article of food, is a lawful exercise by the power to protect, by police regulations, the public health.

Whether the manufacture of oleomargarine or imitation butter of the kind described in the Act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania of May 21, 1885 (Laws of Penn. of 1885, p. 22, No. 25) is or may be conducted in such a way or with such skill and secrecy as to baffle ordinary inspection, or whether it involves such danger to the public health as to require, for the protection of the people, the entire suppression of the business, rather than its regulation in such manner as to permit the manufacture and sale of articles of that class that do not contain noxious ingredients, are questions of fact and of public policy which belong to the legislative department to determine .

The statute of Pennsylvania of May 21, 1885, "for the protection of the public health, and to prevent adulteration of dairy products and fraud in the sale thereof" neither denies to persons within the jurisdiction of the state the equal protection of the laws nor deprives persons of their property without that compensation required by law, and is not repugnant in these respects to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Click to expand...


The 14th was kind of weak in the way that it allowed rights to be legislated away back in those days. Since Flores this has been much less of an issue. States still ban stuff in commerce all the time with very little reason and challenge.
 
The 80 year margarine wars, a dark time in American history :)

It seems there were some interstate commerce issues regarding bans with exemptions for domestic producers that made it to SCOTUS. Most of the other cases I see have more to do with truth in advertising and trade secrets. There are a surprising number of cases involving the production/sale/distribution of Margarine.
 
Last edited:
Chex, I'm wondering whether the panel you heard referenced Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U.S. 461 (1894). Looks as if MA was allowed not ban the colored stuff, but not the uncolored.

Any case that refers to oleomargarine is likely to reflect a pre-FDR view of one's rights in the market and would likely not be an excellent basis for overturning a firearms restriction.
 
Last edited:
zukiphile said:
Any case that refers to oleomargarine is likely to reflect a pre-FDR view of one's rights in the market and would likely not be an excellent basis for overturning a firearms restriction.
Click to expand...
Why pre-FDR? I was born in 1944. I can remember in the early 1950s (and maybe later) my parents buying white(ish) oleomargarine and having to squeeze a tube of yellow food coloring into it to make it look like "the high-priced spread."

In fact, we didn't even call it "margarine." We called it "oleo."
 
AB said:
Why pre-FDR? I was born in 1944. I can remember in the early 1950s (and maybe later) my parents buying white(ish) oleomargarine and having to squeeze a tube of yellow food coloring into it to make it look like "the high-priced spread."

In fact, we didn't even call it "margarine." We called it "oleo."
Click to expand...

I never heard the term "oleomargarine" until we hit a case about in con law. None of the students had either. I believe that case was a 19th century case.

The FDR metric is approximate. It's true that the NIRA was found unconstitutional after FDR was elected, but that era marks a shift in how the courts came to view federal power. My sense is that the term "oleomargarine" in a case would indicate that the case pre-dates that shift.

AB, if it helps illustrate the march of time I offer this jarring tale: My wife made a quip about a "return" key on a computer keyboard, but my 10 year old and 14 year old looked confused. I had to remind her that neither of them had likely ever seen a typewriter with a return lever, so the idea of a "return" key was foreign to them.
 
Last edited:
Thanks natman, I was spelling it wrong that's why I couldn't find it. Now that we have it, could it apply now? I have no real legal training but when I heard about the case I thought of the AW bans in some states, considering that the feds tax guns.
 
I well remember eating that oleaginous stuff in the 1950's. My parents wouldn't serve it, they were farm kids and knew what real butter tasted like.
 
kilimanjaro said:
I well remember eating that oleaginous stuff in the 1950's. My parents wouldn't serve it, they were farm kids and knew what real butter tasted like.
Click to expand...
In the 1960s I worked summers in a factory making swimming pool filters. They guy who was our sales manager left us to take a job with Drew Chemical Company. We were both car nuts, so awhile after he started the new job he invited me up to meet his new wife and see his new Shelby Mustang.

Chatting over lunch, margarine came up. Ron stated quite forcefully that Drew Chemical made it, that it was basically an industrial byproduct, and that now he knew what was in it he'd never allow it in his house.

I accepted that as words to live by.

Now ... with thread drift accounted for, I'm very interested to find out if the resident legal scholars think this case could provide any useful precedent for firearms bans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top